Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 83
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
I have no questions. The presentation was clear.
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
First of all, I would like to thank you for giving us your time to help in our review of this important issue. I would also like to thank you for your testimony, which is very helpful in understanding the bill.
If we assume that we have to amend the Criminal Code in order to improve it in this area, does the bill before us, C-284, meet your expectations?
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
If we were to pass Bill C-284, perhaps with some amendments to give it more teeth, would this have a positive or negative impact on provincial occupation or health and safety legislation?
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
You have a great deal of experience in workplace safety, Mr. Perrault. Do you also think that this bill will have a positive impact?
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, you are also Attorney General and the federal legislation compliance watchdog. Here's my first question.
Mr. Dion, as you pointed out, is the minister coordinating official languages issues, and he should very soon be tabling strong measures in favour of French. What do you think of Mr. Dion's remarks on the choice the Francophone communities have made to defend their rights through court action rather than other types of action? We are aware that the Francophone communities sometimes have no other choice but to go to court to have certain rights recognized. Mr. Dion has criticized them very openly.
As Minister of Justice, Attorney General and defender of rights and legislation compliance, what do you think of that?
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Minister, I know it is always a delicate matter to comment on a statement by one of one's colleagues, but it wasn't just any colleague who made that statement. It was the minister responsible himself.
If we take the Minister's statement together with the strong measures he says he has taken in this matter, for which he has been responsible for a year, we see that he has not filed much to date. If we take that together with your speech and certain reports I have glanced through, we see that Part VII as a whole only has moral, political value. You very clearly said that, in your view, it is not binding. It's not even declaratory; it's moral. When you add up all that, we wonder whether you are abandoning the Francophone communities. We can ask ourselves that question, and I believe a lot of people are doing the same.
I believe you have an opportunity to show that you are now abandoning them by giving your support to a bill which is already before you, Bill S-32, which was introduced by Senator Gauthier.
As Minister of Justice and legislative compliance watchdog and so on, what is your position on Bill C-32, which could greatly help the Francophone communities in defending their rights?
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Minister, I would like you to explain something to me because I must have missed something.
You are a jurist. In my mind, Parliament is not deemed to speak for no reason. I have before me the Official Languages Act and its section 41. You say that that section is not binding, but that it exercises pressure on the government. I have read the briefs, and they say that it is a solemn declaration, that it has a political value and so on. Let's consider a case, for example. I know you will deny it, but it is said that you as a central government are doing nothing to promote the vitality of the Francophone minorities. You are doing nothing. If a Francophone minority in New Brunswick disputes that and wants to sue the government, what recourse does it have? If I have quickly understood, it has no recourse because this is not binding. Is that indeed what we are to understand?
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
From what I understand, the minorities of New Brunswick, Alberta and elsewhere can't force the government to do something based solely on section 41.
So in those cases, Parliament has spoken for no purpose and solely to clear its conscience. If you wanted to correct it without encroaching on the jurisdictions of the provinces, would you agree to have section 41 become binding solely on federal institutions, not only 29 institutions, but on the 150 federal institutions? In that way, you would not be encroaching on provincial jurisdictions. You are responsible for those 150 institutions and you would be giving Parliament what it wanted, that is to say protecting Francophone and Anglophone minorities, particularly the Francophone minorities, because the Anglophones in Quebec are very well served by Shiela Copps and company.
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
I'm reading the comments by Marc Tremblay, legal advisor, who discusses the position of the Department of Justice on Part VII of the Act. At page 4 of his brief, he states:
Part VII of the Official Languages Act is an expression of the principle of advancement toward the equality of status of the official languages by legislative means, confirmed in subsection 16(3) of the Charter.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Minister?
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
The Beaulac decision addresses subsection 16(3) of the Charter, which entrenches the notion of advancement toward equality of the official languages of Canada expressed in the Jones decision. It is confirmed. But it is also said that Mr. Justice Bastarache has previously noted that the application of the advancement principle was illustrated by the passage of the Official Languages Act of 1988.
Since that's somewhat Mr. Dion's hobby-horse, haven't you considered, for the greater benefit of the Francophone and Anglophone minorities, calling upon the Supreme Court of Canada, by a reference, to examine section 41 to decide once and for all the actual scope of that section, in view of developments and in view of the principle of advancement toward equality, which it seems can be amended with the years? Hasn't the time come to petition the Supreme Court of Canada, by means of a reference, to determine Parliament's intent in section 41, instead of making the interpretations you are currently making?
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Justice Bastarache, who talks about this principle of advancement, which is illustrated by the Official Languages Act of 1988, is nevertheless not unfamiliar with the case. He is a Supreme Court justice. Do you maintain it is not necessary to decide this question? Are you saying that Anglophone and Francophone minorities do not deserve to have a specific point in this act checked? Clearly, Mr. Minister, there are not a lot of people around this table who share your enthusiasm, even members who were there at the time do not necessarily share your vision. Nor do they share the vision of any of your predecessors, if I understand them correctly. After so many years, we still don't know exactly where we stand and we wonder. The minorities wonder whether it's binding or declaratory. You say it's political, and another one says it has a moral, solemn value, and so on. It seems to me that the minorities deserve our taking a little time to have this question decided and to clarify the meaning of section 41. Subsequently, we could adjust matters if you thought that was necessary.
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, you noted the following in the report that you read to us:
...the growing number of offenders involved in organized crime and the drug trade calls for more intensive responses.
I agree with that statement. There's no denying the fact that a growing number of drug offenders are gravitating toward organized crime. I also agree that we are dealing with a serious problem, one that needs to be examined closely.
Even before the new provisions of Bill C-24 were introduced, a major undertaking was launched in Quebec, Opération Printemps 2001. Officials cracked down on drug dealers and organized crime. However, judging from the statistics and from the experts have to say, the drug problem continues unabated. Yet, it's not the money that's lacking to deal with the problem in Quebec. Taxpayers ultimately will be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to cover the cost of the “Mom” Boucher or Hells Angels trials.
In Quebec—and I will focus more specifically on Quebec because I represent that constituency, federal legislation appears to be enforced properly and no effort is spared in the process either.
As far as the RCMP is concerned, I contacted various police forces on several occasion, since I'm the party's Justice critic and I've heard about all kinds of goings-on in Quebec. To avoid making any mistakes or implicating anyone other than myself, I will confine my remarks to the situation in my riding.
Specifically, I'm concerned about Saint-Michel-des-Saints and the community of Manouane which has a serious problem with marijuana cultivation. Apparently, the culprits are a gang of five or six individuals known as troublemakers on the reserve. Not surprisingly, the suicide rate among local youths is quite high. The RCMP has been called on several occasions, but has never visited Manouane. I realize that this is a vast territory, but the problem is no less extensive.
I also know for a fact that the RCMP has many a number of raids on private residences where marijuana was being grown. Some officers have told me that the quantities of drugs seized are so large and the operations to combat drugs so vast that other investigations have to be put on hold.
I see that your budget includes an addition $75 million for operating costs over last year. Having observed the increased emphasis on national defence since September 11, I have to wonder if there will be much left for the RCMP to conduct operations in the field, increase staff levels and take the necessary steps to enforce the law. In my view, which is shared by many people in my region, federal legislation is all well and good, but enforcement is left to the provinces. Perhaps the RCMP isn't doing everything it can to enforce federal legislation.
Do you have any plans to increase RCMP staffing levels so that the force can do its job in Quebec? I realize the situation is different in Western Canada where the RCMP presence is much greater. I'll come back to that if time permits. Will the RCMP receive the additional funding required to wage an effective war, not only against organized crime in Quebec, but also against the serious drug problem of marijuana cultivation?
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
My question is for the Commissioner. You claim to be satisfied with the federal funding your received. Perhaps you have no choice in the matter either. I can understand that. However, surely you can appreciate why I am concerned about a community that has been left to wage its own battle against organized crime and the problem of marijuana growing. Once harvested, the marijuana is shipped south and finds its way onto the market in the Lanaudière region. I'm sure you can also appreciate my dissatisfaction with being told that money and staff are in short supply and that this is the reason why the RCMP does not extend its operations to Manouane in the northern region of my riding.
I'm happy that you're happy with funding levels, but I'm not. You should be taking a very close look at this situation. I don't know if this is a problem common to all reserves, but in Manouane, it's a major problem and some day soon, the situation will become explosive.
Having said that, it's interesting to note that everyone appears to be on the same wavelength and to get along. That's nice to see.
Recently, the Canadian Police Association lobbied us for one day and talked to us about the famous Club Feds, these facilities for offenders which resemble the Club Meds. While I don't always agree with the Association's stand on tougher laws or the treatment of offenders, when it comes to Club Feds, I agree with them 100 per cent.
As far as I know, the federal government and the Commissioner's office have been silent on the subject. Your members are the ones lobbying hard for the elimination of Club Feds. Are the Commissioner, Correctional Services and the Solicitor General still on good terms? Do you plan to intervene so that at some point, a rational approach is taken to dealing with offenders? I think taxpayers are fet up with footing the bill for Club Feds and for the other things they see on television.
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
I'd like to hear the Commissioner's views on the subject.
View Michel Bellehumeur Profile
BQ (QC)
I want to be very clear about my earlier question. I'm in favour of rehabilitation and of having inmates attend training courses and getting the treatment they need to help them with the reintegration process upon their release.
However, judging from your answers, the federal government doesn't have the money to conduct investigations or the staff to send RCMP officers to my riding to fight organized crime and deal with marijuana growers. At the same time, this very same federal government manages to find the money to allow certain inmates to play golf, to go salmon fishing, to enjoy well-equipped gymnasiums and to go on whale watching expeditions. Something is wrong with the system, in my opinion.
Judging from his responses, the Solicitor General appears to be denying the existence of these Club Feds. Can the RCMP Commissioner tell me if he has a problem with the existence of these facilities which have all of the amenities I listed, along with many others that I have not mentioned?
Results: 1 - 15 of 83 | Page: 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data